Those are sexist, heteronormative statements, but I don't see exampes of female privilege here.

Leohan's claim was that the woman who made these remarks was not called out on them because she was a woman.* Therein lies the female privilege.

*I'm not sure I make this association, myself, but I wasn't there. From the tale as related, though, I don't see that it automatically follows that the reason she wasn't called out was solely, nor even primarily, due to her gender. I strongly suspect it was the social demographic of those at the party--"programmers who know their computers," not a group typically known for outspoken or confrontational attitudes--that had more to do with letting the ladies remarks go unchallenged. But, again, I was not there, so I can only speculate._________________I am only a somewhat arbitrary sequence of raised and lowered voltages to which your mind insists upon assigning meaning

...Stripey, you bolded the important part? Why didn't you pay attention to it?

bitflipper: Yup. A man can produces lots of babies in very limited time and without any form of body harm. Yet you can't blame him for attachment towards an unborn child that materialized, can you?

I'm on with the general agreement of the forum, can't say enough times.

Tahpenes: I want your phraseology because it would be convenient. I quoted Bart because at this point not acknowledging him would be impolite.

Speaking of impolite, sorry. I'm ashamed to admit that I didn't read the links. My bad. While I have seen the second and third one in the past I really should have checked the first one. Let's see...

Well, that was interesting. And it's appreciated that it didn't come from a feminist website. Personally I see privilege as a binary, though. A group that's considered underprivileged can enjoy from certain privileges unique to that group. My nearest dictionary goes:

"Privilege: Extension or advantage that's special or exclusive to someone."

Can we truly say that the female gender does not have that?

Also Tahpenes you are very good at this. Originally hoped to have this discussion with mouse or rants but you gave me some surprises. Sorry about not matching your linking, but I normally argue when I have the unpopular opinion, so a war of links may be a war that I can't win. Sorry again._________________Welcome to Sinfest, the only place with a 46 pages long thread about sentient toasters

Those are sexist, heteronormative statements, but I don't see exampes of female privilege here.

Leohan's claim was that the woman who made these remarks was not called out on them because she was a woman.* Therein lies the female privilege.

*I'm not sure I make this association, myself, but I wasn't there. From the tale as related, though, I don't see that it automatically follows that the reason she wasn't called out was solely, nor even primarily, due to her gender. I strongly suspect it was the social demographic of those at the party--"programmers who know their computers," not a group typically known for outspoken or confrontational attitudes--that had more to do with letting the ladies remarks go unchallenged. But, again, I was not there, so I can only speculate.

I get that, but I disagree that it is privilege. It is a result of her buying into sexist ideas, it is stupid, and what she says isn't true. But I don't buy that as an example of female privilege. Privilege comes from power, and being viewed as a natural child nurterer is not a source of power.

bitflipper: Yup. A man can produces lots of babies in very limited time and without any form of body harm. Yet you can't blame him for attachment towards an unborn child that materialized, can you?

I think you misread me. I was the one arguing that a man should have the right to intervene for his child, or, at the very least, to have some degree of say in the matter. I got shot down._________________I am only a somewhat arbitrary sequence of raised and lowered voltages to which your mind insists upon assigning meaning

...Stripey, you bolded the important part? Why didn't you pay attention to it?

The important part is that you said women are entitled to it. That's not true everywhere, not even in the US with Roe V Wade.

Leohan wrote:

bitflipper: Yup. A man can produces lots of babies in very limited time and without any form of body harm. Yet you can't blame him for attachment towards an unborn child that materialized, can you?

It's fine for him to be attached. It's normal. But he really literally does not have to suffer the same consequences as the mother. He may take part in doctor's visits, and in all the worrying, but he doesn't have to personally endure medical complications arising from pregnancy. So while he has some stake and he may want to be a parent, there is no reason he should have a legal say in whether a woman carries a child.

Leohan wrote:

Well, that was interesting. And it's appreciated that it didn't come from a feminist website. Personally I see privilege as a binary, though. A group that's considered underprivileged can enjoy from certain privileges unique to that group. My nearest dictionary goes:

"Privilege: Extension or advantage that's special or exclusive to someone."

Can we truly say that the female gender does not have that?

Privilege is intersectional. A straight women has privilege over a gay man, and vice versa. Different groups have power over others, and the more minorities you belong to, the fewer instances of privilege you experience.

Apparently no. But I understand how some people would think I was advocating for that.

Also sorry for the confusion bit. Lot's of replies my way, as is to be expected...

ALSO also: Stripey... Are we agreeing about the fact that there is such a thing as female privilege? Because I'm not sure about it considering your statement with straight women and gay men._________________Welcome to Sinfest, the only place with a 46 pages long thread about sentient toasters

bitflipper: Yup. A man can produces lots of babies in very limited time and without any form of body harm. Yet you can't blame him for attachment towards an unborn child that materialized, can you?

I think you misread me. I was the one arguing that a man should have the right to intervene for his child, or, at the very least, to have some degree of say in the matter. I got shot down.

I wasn't there for the other discussion, but out of curiosity, what do you mean by "say"?

Were you arguing that the man should actually have some kind of way to force her to stay pregnant?

That's kind of important. I'm all for couples both discussing having children or not. It's just good in general for partners to be able to discuss matters that affect them both (Ie whether they will move, whether they will have kids.). But the discussion is over something women have the legal last word over. If women do not get to legally make the decision themselves, then they can be forced to carry children.

I wasn't there for the other discussion, but out of curiosity, what do you mean by "say"?

Were you arguing that the man should actually have some kind of way to force her to stay pregnant?

Let me just link you to the other discussion. There were a lot of good points brought up, particularly by those opposed to my own point of view. I can't say that they changed my mind, but that's probably more due to the fact that there are some things about which I am steadfastly stubborn than due to any lack of reasoning or support they gave for their arguments.

The short answer to your direct question is that I was deliberately vague in what I meant by "say," in the hopes of drawing out some possibilities for compromise and bases for discussion.

Do I believe that a man has any right to tell a woman what to do with her body? No, not really. But I also believe a different set of rules needs to come into play once a couple decide to have sex, particularly if that consensual sex results in a pregnancy, intended or not. That decision bears a responsibility with it, and, suddenly, it's not just one person, but three people--possibly more--who are affected by choices either of the adults make (I don't buy the "fetus" argument; an abandoned infant also cannot survive on its own, but is still a human life.) What those rules are, though, hasn't been very well defined, as I see things. Despite the consensus of the board, I still see it as not just one person's burden and not just one person's choice. Regardless of how fairly or otherwise burdens, risks, and responsibilities may be divided by forces beyond our control, to say the choice is singular in nature defies the fact that more than one person is involved and affected, and invites an essential wrongfulness._________________I am only a somewhat arbitrary sequence of raised and lowered voltages to which your mind insists upon assigning meaning

Last edited by bitflipper on Mon Mar 11, 2013 5:42 pm; edited 1 time in total

Apparently no. But I understand how some people would think I was advocating for that.

Also sorry for the confusion bit. Lot's of replies my way, as is to be expected...

ALSO also: Stripes... Are we agreeing about the fact that there is such a thing as female privilege? Because I'm not sure about it considering your statement with straight women and gay men.

No, we aren't agreeing about that. The privilege in that case comes from her being straight. Straight has privilege over gay, male has privilege over female, and white has privilege over black. Things get tricky if you belong to one or more disempowered groups and you are interacting with someone else who belongs to one or more disempowered groups. Those can be some seriously head hurting arguments, and I try my best to avoid them.

In your original example, you asserted that a woman having an abortion then announcing that she did so was an example of female privilege - because women have a right to the final say in whether a pregnancy is terminated. While in some cases that might be a total asshat move on her part, having the sole right to terminate a pregnancy doesn't stem from power. That right came about by women fighting to end abuses.

Basically, to say that bodily autonomy is a privilege is simply not true. It is a basic right that does not infringe on other people's rights.

Another example (Which I am not equating to having a child.). Your partner has a tattoo of their ex's name. If you want them to remove it, you can try to convince them to get rid of it. But if they decide to keep it, that doesn't mean they have privilege over you. That means they have bodily autonomy, and whatever their reasons for keeping the tattoo, they should not have to remove it for you.

The most difficult part of this topic is that there is no equivalence to pregnancy for human men. Unless human oviposition for men is a thing.

...Look. I know that men having no say about the lives or deaths of their unborn offsprings is a perfectly logical consequence of the woman's right of body autonomy which I agree on. However, the consequence of this is that women have a say about the lives or deaths of their unborn offsprings and men don't.

...Look. I know that men having no say about the lives or deaths of their unborn offsprings is a perfectly logical consequence of the woman's right of body autonomy which I agree on. However, the consequence of this is that women have a say about the lives or deaths of their unborn offsprings and men don't.

Wouldn't you call that an advantage of sorts? A benefit? ...A privilege?

I think the problem we are having here is akin to the clash between the colloquial and the scientific use of the word "theory" when it comes to creationist debates. They just mean different things in those contexts.

Sure, colloquially "privilege" can be and is often understood to describe advantages and benefits in a general sense, but that isn't the definition in which it is being used when people talk about things like "male privilege" "class privilege" or "white privilege."

...Look. I know that men having no say about the lives or deaths of their unborn offsprings is a perfectly logical consequence of the woman's right of body autonomy which I agree on. However, the consequence of this is that women have a say about the lives or deaths of their unborn offsprings and men don't.

Wouldn't you call that an advantage of sorts? A benefit? ...A privilege?

I think the problem we are having here is akin to the clash between the colloquial and the scientific use of the word "theory" when it comes to creationist debates. They just mean different things in those contexts.

Sure, colloquially "privilege" can be and is often understood to describe advantages and benefits in a general sense, but that isn't the definition in which it is being used when people talk about things like "male privilege" "class privilege" or "white privilege."

...Could be. It sure wouldn't be the first time that literal interpretations of concepts would make me go on an useless argument...